PATLY.AIExaminer difficulty
How examiners in this art unit compare
The spread of examiners on each measure. Click a bar to see who is in it.
3-year grant rate
74%
+6 pts vs tech center 3600 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
76%
+6 pts vs tech center 3600 range 76% to 77%
Rejections before allowance
1.5
−0.1 vs tech center 3600
Months to first action
20.6 mo
+2.2 vs tech center 3600
In plain words
With Art unit 3658, 74% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 68% for tech center 3600. The first action takes 20.6 months on average.
Timeline
Applications by filing year: drag across the years to study a period
Allowed in green, abandoned in red, pending in grey. The figures above and every chart that can be recomputed by filing year follow the span you pick; the rest are marked all years.
Ask the record
Questions practitioners ask, answered from 11,760 applications
Grant rate from the first action
Share allowed, by months after the first office action
The gold line is this record and the blue line is tech center 3600. The marker is the three-year grant rate.
Outcome simulator
Where you are, what you do next, and the odds that follow
A model of this record’s own transitions: each examiner action, the response to it, and what came next. Thin data borrows from tech center 3600.
Prosecution paths
How prosecution actually unfolds
Every application’s sequence of examiner actions, from the first action to the outcome. Hover a band for the count.
Compared with peers
Against the art unit, the tech center and the USPTO
The same figures for this record, tech center 3600, the tech center and the whole office.
Allowance over time
How fast applications are allowed, or abandoned
Share allowed (gold) and abandoned (red) by month since filing, with pending cases counted only while they are pending.
Rejection fingerprint
What gets rejected, by statute
Share of office actions raising each ground; blue is tech center 3600.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against tech center 3600.
Interviews
Does an interview help?
Allowance with and without an examiner interview, and how often interviews happen.
Odds by round
Chance the next action is an allowance
After the first, second and later rejections.
Response clock
Days from a response to the next action
How long the examiner takes to act once you have answered.
Quarter-end timing
When allowances land in the fiscal quarter
Allowances by week of the USPTO fiscal quarter. An even spread would put 15% in the last two weeks.
Appeals
What happens on appeal
Appeals filed, briefs, examiner’s answers, and how the Board decided.
Trend
Allowance rate by filing year
Is it getting easier or harder? Gold is this record, blue is tech center 3600.
Who files here
Assignees and firms with the most applications
How often each one was allowed with this unit.
Landscape
Examiners across tech center 3600
Each dot is an examiner: allowance rate across, rejections before allowance down, size by caseload. Click one to open it.
Examiners
Every examiner in the unit, ranked by difficulty
| Examiner | Applications | Allowance rate | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emily W Cheng | 108 | 60% | P96 Harder than peers |
| Shaheda Shabnam Hoque | 122 | 50% | P95 Harder than peers |
| Alexander T Vu | 101 | 57% | P93 Harder than peers |
| Joseph Henry Brown | 566 | 61% | P89 Harder than peers |
| Alexandra Robyn Morford | 72 | 45% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Matthew Ryan Vaerewyck | 23 | 48% | P84 |
| Moya Phung Ly | 35 | 45% | P83 Harder than peers |
| John Martin O'Malley | 61 | 58% | P76 Harder than peers |
| Christopher Darren Scott | 33 | 67% | P71 Typical for peers |
| Blake Andrew Wood | 221 | 74% | P67 Typical for peers |
| Tyler Roger Robarge | 28 | 68% | P66 |
| Thomas Oliver Magnuson | 52 | 63% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Elizabeth Rose Neleski | 149 | 76% | P64 Typical for peers |
| Noah William Stiebritz | 88 | 67% | P63 Typical for peers |
| Christopher Allen Buksa | 214 | 76% | P63 Typical for peers |
| Paul Woodward Arellano | 107 | 80% | P59 Typical for peers |
| Victor L Macarthur | 1,172 | 68% | P59 Typical for peers |
| Zakaria Elahmadi | 931 | 77% | P55 Typical for peers |
| William C Joyce | 1,220 | 73% | P53 Typical for peers |
| Ellis B Ramirez | 294 | 81% | P51 Typical for peers |
| Gregory T Prather | 705 | 72% | P48 Typical for peers |
| Thomas S Fix | 449 | 75% | P48 Typical for peers |
| Valentin Craciun | 169 | 66% | P47 Typical for peers |
| Benjamin J Brosh | 158 | 75% | P45 Typical for peers |
| Mohamad O El Sayah | 310 | 77% | P44 Typical for peers |
| Leonard J Archuleta | 50 | 66% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Gregory Robert Weber | 448 | 78% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Jr, Bobby Rushing | 663 | 79% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Atticus A Cameron | 150 | 81% | P33 Typical for peers |
| Madison B Emmett | 242 | 82% | P32 Typical for peers |
| Jude Agendia | 223 | 83% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Randell J Krug | 582 | 79% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Terence Boes | 1,001 | 75% | P21 Easier than peers |
| Justin Mitchell Krause | 452 | 79% | P21 Easier than peers |
| Michael P Gonzalez | 128 | 79% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Bryant Tang | 134 | 89% | P7 Easier than peers |
| William J Cook | 921 | 88% | P6 Easier than peers |
| Rachel M Gude | 2 | 100% | P3 |
| David Morgan Fenstermacher | 903 | 88% | P3 Easier than peers |
| Luis E Lopez-Garcia | 1 | 100% | P3 |
| Ha Dinh Ho | 1,344 | 90% | P3 Easier than peers |
| Benjamin Akiva Felson | 1 | 100% | P1 |